Syria Air Strikes...dave Needs The Labour Party !

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34956795

There has been a lot of jeering on AB recently about the Labour Party in general, and Corbyn in particular, especially over the decision on whether to start air strikes against against ISIS in Syria.

But the reality is, that because the Tories have such a small majority, they need Labours support for this extension of the RAF activities in the region.

Another reason that dave desperately needs the Labour Party to support him in this, is because he can't rely on enough of his own MPs to get the vote through.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon in the link above, has made a very good case and I am on record as supporting dave in this matter.

[Zacs-Master]

So Labour still have some shreds of power must be a small comfort.

[naomi24]

Ahh, Mikey. Grasping at straws - but you try.

[Prudie]

Can it really be described as Labour support when those who actually do side with Dave are in direct opposition to the wishes of their Leader?

[ToraToraTora]

do you think we should do Syrian air strikes mikey? Dave doesn't need permission anyway, this is purely a PR exercise. This is the sort of subject that is not generally whipped anyway so there is bound to be cross party variance on opinion, not sure what point you are trying to make here me old china!

[Svejk]

To be fair, mikey has made his position very clear. Like David Cameron, 2 years ago he wanted to bomb Assad in support of the brave freedom fighters(IS)
And now, he wants to bomb IS in support of Assad.
What could be clearer??

[mikey4444]

Naomi....no, its not me that is grasping at straws ! If dave can't brown-nose enough Labour MPs, this vote will fail. If he could rely on his own MPs, he wouldn't need Labour, but he can't.

TTT....dave won't go ahead unless he has the OK from the House. He could have decided at any point to order bombing if he wished but wisely he has decided to get cross-Party support. You are correct that there is Party variance but personally I think he will get a yes vote.

I think that all Parties should make this a free vote.

[ichkeria]

There won't be a vote at all unless there is plainly a majority in favour. Corbyn will either allow a free vote or, if he has a death wish related to his position as leader, try and force his MPs to vote against. Presumably either way the govt has a good idea which labour MPs would support it. The current calculation seems to be there aren't yet enough. What would happen if Corbyn were to do the second option is less clear.

[mikey4444]

ichkeria...if what you say is true, then we can only presume that dave can't find enough of his own MPs to support him.

[ichkeria]

About 30 don't I believe

[ToraToraTora]

Personally I think with uncle tom cobbly and all bombing already we should try and find something else to do. It must be an air traffic nightmare as it is.

[Bigbad]

It would appear that public opinion over possible air strikes in Syria, is as divided as MP’s opinions.
But as these MP’s represent us, shouldn’t they be consulting us about how we want our elected member to vote?
Surely all it takes is us registering on the MP’s website (haven’t got one? Well, get one, then.) with our electoral roll numbers They can give us a bit of information showing the pros and cons, we can watch and read the debates about it, then we log on and choose “yes” or “no”. Then whichever answer gets the most votes is how the MP votes in the House of Commons.

There are often hotly debated issues culminating in a vote, isn’t it time we had a say in all of them? Never mind this abstaining or resigning over “issues of conscience” nonsense.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //Naomi....no, its not me that is grasping at straws ! //

No? Well perhaps you just like to think of them as still of some use.

[mikey4444]

Well...dave seems to need them Naomi !

[naomi24]

It's been explained to you - he doesn't.

[mikey4444]

Yes he does Naomi, otherwise why would have instructed his Defence Secretary Mr Fallon to have talks with Labour MPs ?

From my BBC link....

"Ministers need the support of enough Labour MPs to compensate for Conservative rebels who will vote against military intervention, and Mr Fallon said he had been briefing Labour MPs on the government's case"

"He (Fallon).told the BBC he had been in talks with Labour MPs but added: "We've got to keep building the case".

[ichkeria]

David Cameron will almost certainly need support from MPs in parties other than his own if he is to win a vote in the Commons on Syria. Assuming that 315 of the 330 Tory MPs turn up and vote vote in favour and the other 15 abstain rather than vote against, which seems like his best-case scenario, then that leaves, by my reckoning, 314 others. So he'd win by one, but he wouldn't risk a vote in those circumstances. But we all know that there are a fair number of Labour MPs and a handful of others who would make a difference: that is why the Tories have been lobbying Labour, and it all depends (a) on whether Corbyn allows his MPs a free vote - as I said earlier - or indeed what might happen if he did not.

[jourdain2]

Last time this question arose, I was against air strikes. This time it is different. Dave can, of course, authorise action on his own, but for obvious reasons prefers a majority concensus. Because of this he needs Labour and SNP support.

The last I heard this evening was that Corbyn was saying that he, and he alone, will decide if Labout MPs have a free vote. This is rather heavy-handed as a statement and if he decides that he will forbid a vote on conscience I think that he will face a revolt. In many ways he may wish for this. (Who is with me? would be answered.) I would be sad to see a fragmented Labour party. I'm on record as not being a Labour voter, but I see the need for a stable opposition party to hold any party in power in check.